Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: December 17th , 2025
4662/2025 & CRL.M.A. 9147/2025 RAM SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioners in person
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State
Inspector Satbir Singh, PS- Jaitpur R2 (LR of complainant) in person
R3(Sushil Kumar) in person
ASHOK CHAUHAN
AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aditya, Mr. Shubham Chauhan & Ms. Srejal Mishra, Advs.
Petitioners in person
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP for the State Inspector Satbir Singh, PS- Jaitpur
Mr. Aditya Gaur, Adv. for R2 to R6 R2 to R4 in person
R5 & R6 (through VC)
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions are respectively filed seeking quashing of cross-FIRs, being, FIR No. 644/2014 dated 04.09.2014, registered at Police Station Jait Pur, for offences under Sections 452/354/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and FIR No. 645/2014 dated 14.09.2014, registered at Police Station Jait Pur, for offences under Sections 354/323/506/34 of the IPC, including all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred that the parties are family members, who are embroiled in multiple property disputes. Allegedly, on 14.09.2014, due to some misunderstanding, the parties were embroiled in an altercation. Allegations of misbehaviour were made in both the cases. This led to registration of the FIRs.
3. Chargesheet in FIR No. 644/2014 has been filed against the petitioners (in CRL.M.C. 1025/2025) for offences under Sections 452/354/323/506/325/427/34 of the IPC. Chargesheet in FIR No. 645/2014 has been filed against the petitioners (in CRL.M.C. 9034/2025) for offences under Sections 354/325/323/506/34 of the IPC.
4. The learned counsel for the parties submits that parties are family members and some misunderstandings cropped up among the parties due to which an altercation took place. They submit that the dispute has since been resolved.
5. It is stated that the complainant in FIR No. 644/2014 has expired and her son (Respondent No.2 in CRL.M.C. 1025/2025) has been impleaded as her legal representative.
6. The present petitions are filed on the ground that the matters are amicably settled between the parties by way of separate Compromise-Cum-Settlement Deeds dated 04.02.2025 and 03.12.2025, on their own free will, without any threat, force, coercion, misrepresentation or influence.
7. The accused persons in both the cases unconditionally apologize for their behaviour and undertake not to indulge into any such activity in future. They are bound to the said undertaking.
8. The petitioners, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No. 3 (in CRL.M.C. 1025/2025) are present in person. The petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (in CRL.M.C. 9034/2025) are present in person and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (in CRL.M.C. 9034/2025) are present through video-conference. The parties have been duly identified by the Investigating Officer.
9. The victims as well as Respondent No.2 (in CRL.M.C. 1025/2025), on being asked, state that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the respective FIRs, and they have no objection if the proceedings are quashed. They submit that they have no remaining grievance and wish to live their lives peacefully in the future.
10. Offences under Sections 323/325/427/506 of the IPC are compoundable in nature whereas offence under Sections 354/452 of the IPC are non-compoundable in nature.
11. It is well settled that the High Court while exercising its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) [erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973] can quash offences which are noncompoundable on the ground that there is a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down parameters and guidelines for High Court while accepting settlement and quashing the proceedings. In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.: (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:- “29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.” (emphasis supplied)
12. Similarly, in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.: (2017) 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” (emphasis supplied)
13. In the present matters, the victims have stated that they do not wish to pursue the proceedings arising out of the respective FIRs. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, it is unlikely that the present FIRs will result in conviction when the victims do not wish to pursue the cases. It is also pertinent to note that the parties are related to each other. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn.
14. Keeping in view the nature of the dispute and that the parties have amicably entered into a settlement, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the dispute alive and continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
15. However, keeping in mind the fact that the chargesheets have already been filed in the present cases and the state machinery has been put to motion, ends of justice would be served if the petitioners are put to cost.
16. In view of the above, FIR No. 644/2014 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹1,00,000/- by the petitioners (in CRL.M.C. 1025/2025), to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of eight weeks.
17. Similarly, FIR No. 645/2014 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed, subject to payment of total cost of ₹1,00,000/- by the petitioners (in CRL.M.C. 9034/2025), to be deposited with the Delhi Police Welfare Society, within a period of eight weeks.
18. The present petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms.
19. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
20. A copy of the order be placed in both the matters. AMIT MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 17, 2025/“SS”